ArticleBJGP open2017
The specific needs of patients following sepsis: a nested qualitative interview study.
Article in BJGP open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- General practitioners' views and experiences in caring for patients after sepsis: a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Piloting an ICU follow-up clinic - qualitative process evaluation alongside a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Article
- Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurvivors of sepsis suffer from multiple critical disease sequelae when discharged to primary care. There is a lack of structured aftercare programmes and case managers may be helpful in caring for patients with chronic critical disease.
aimTo gain insight into the functioning of a structured aftercare programme for post-sepsis patients in general practice. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients and GPs across Germany who participated in an randomised controlled trial of a structured aftercare programme for post-sepsis patients, which included patient education and case manager monitoring.
methodQualitative interviews with 19 patients and 13 GPs were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsPatients appreciated the information given in the patient education session, but some disliked it because it reminded them of their serious illness. GPs appreciated patient education because well-informed patients are more likely to participate in follow-up. Patients appreciated the case monitoring because it made them feel safer and more cared for and helped them reflect on their health issues. However, some patients felt uncomfortable with the regular questioning. GPs appreciated the case management programme because they received regular clinical information. However some GPs were wary of the clinical relevance of the information, the delegation of the patient to the nurse, and efficiency of time. Both patients and GPs requested more clinical support, such as easier access to psychotherapists.
conclusionIn general, both patients and their GPs appreciated patient education and monitoring following sepsis. Patients' retrospections and worries about their serious illness need to be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.